
==== Front
Cancer Immunol Immunother
Cancer Immunol Immunother
Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy : CII
0340-7004
1432-0851
Springer Berlin Heidelberg Berlin/Heidelberg

39105880
3744
10.1007/s00262-024-03744-z
Research
Hypofractionated radiotherapy plus PD-1 antibody and SOX chemotherapy as second-line therapy in metastatic pancreatic cancer: a single-arm, phase II clinical trial
Wang Qin 1
Tong Fan 12
Qiao Li 12
Qi Liang 1
Sun Yi 1
Zhu Yahui 1
Ni Jiayao 1
Liu Juan 1
Kong Weiwei 1
Liu Baorui baoruiliu@nju.edu.cn

13
Du Juan dujuanglyy@163.com

123
1 grid.428392.6 0000 0004 1800 1685 Department of Oncology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Affiliated Hospital of Medical School, Nanjing University & Clinical Cancer Institute of Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210008 China
2 Department of Oncology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Clinical College of Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, 210008 China
3 https://ror.org/01rxvg760 grid.41156.37 0000 0001 2314 964X Comprehensive Cancer Center of Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing, University&Clinical Cancer Institute of Nanjing University, 321 Zhongshan Road, Nanjing, 210008 China
6 8 2024
6 8 2024
10 2024
73 10 2014 4 2024
21 5 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Purpose

To assess the efficacy and safety of concurrent hypofractionated radiotherapy plus anti-PD-1 antibody and SOX chemotherapy in the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) after failure of first-line chemotherapy.

Methods

Patients with pathologically confirmed mPC who failed standard first-line chemotherapy were enrolled. The patients were treated with a regimen of hypofractionated radiotherapy, SOX chemotherapy, and immune checkpoint inhibitors at our institution. We collected the patients’ clinical information and outcome measurements. The median progression-free survival (mPFS) was the primary endpoint of the study, followed by disease control rate (DCR), objective response rate (ORR), median overall survival (mOS) and safety. Exploratory analyses included biomarkers related to the benefits.

Results

Between February 24, 2021, and August 30, 2023, twenty-five patients were enrolled in the study, and twenty-three patients who received at least one dose of the study agent had objective efficacy evaluation. The mPFS was 5.48 months, the mOS was 6.57 months, and the DCR and ORR were 69.5% and 30.4%, respectively. Among the seven patients who achieved a PR, the median duration of the response was 7.41 months. On-treatment decreased serum CA19-9 levels were associated with better overall survival. Besides, pretreatment inflammatory markers were associated with tumor response and survival.

Conclusions

Clinically meaningful antitumor activity and favorable safety profiles were demonstrated after treatment with these combination therapies in patients with refractory mPC. On-treatment decreased serum CA19-9 levels and pretreatment inflammatory markers platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) might be biomarkers related to clinical benefits.

Clinical trial registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=130211, identifier: ChiCTR2100049799, date of registration: 2021–08-09.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00262-024-03744-z.

Keywords

Metastatic pancreatic cancer
Immune checkpoint inhibitors
Hypofractionated radiotherapy
SOX chemotherapy
Second-line therapy
National Natural Science Foundation of China82103687 Wang Qin Nanjing Medical Science and technology development FoundationNo. YKK23077 Wang Qin CHEN Xiaoping Foundation for the Development of Science and Technology of Hubei ProvinceCXPJJH11900001-2019101 Du Juan the Special Fund of Health Science and Technology Development of NanjingNo. YKK20080 Du Juan the National Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNo. 82072926 Du Juan he Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceNo. BK20191114 Du Juan issue-copyright-statement© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the deadliest solid tumors, and the 5-year survival rate is the lowest among various cancers (9% for all stages) [1]. Due to the tendency for late diagnosis, early metastatic nature, aggressive local invasion, and resistance to systemic therapy [2, 3], the prognosis of patients with PDAC remains dismal. Even in patients undergoing curative resection, survival remains poor, with a 5-year survival rate less than 20% and a 5-year overall survival (OS) lower than 7% [4]. Based on the result of phase 3 NAPOLI-1 trial, nanoliposomal irinotecan/5-FU/leucovorin is the only approved second-line treatment for patients suffering from metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) [5]. The median OS duration for patients treated with nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV was 6.1 months, compared to 4.2 months for those receiving 5-FU/LV. Additionally, the overall response rate was 16% in patients treated with nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV, whereas it was only 1% in those receiving 5-FU/LV. However, the combination chemotherapy group had a higher occurrence of grade 3/4 adverse reactions. Additionally, the patients receiving second-line treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer have such poor physical condition that they may be unable to tolerate this combined chemotherapy regimen. 5-Fu-based chemotherapy or capecitabine-based chemotherapy are also used after progression under gemcitabine-based therapy [6]. S-1 monotherapy in gemcitabine-refractory metastatic pancreatic cancer has been reported to show some efficacy in a previous phase II trial, the objective response rate (ORR) was 4.7%, overall survival (OS) was 5.5 months, and most of those adverse reactions were tolerable [7]. In Japan, S-1 is commonly used for the treatment of gemcitabine-refractory metastatic pancreatic cancer. In the phase II study of S-1 for pancreatic cancer resistant to GEM, the objective response rate (ORR) was 15%, median progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were only 2.0 months and 4.5 months, respectively, and most of those adverse reactions were tolerable [8]. Whereas, no regimen has demonstrated superiority in the second-line, and there is urgent need for innovative therapies to address the challenges associated with this disease.

Immunotherapy represents a promising development in the treatment of cancer; conversely, the results of investigations into its efficacy as immunotherapy alone for PDAC have mostly been disappointing [9–11]. Immunotherapy can achieve clinical benefits in only a small subset of PC patients displaying microsatellite instability (MSI) or mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency [12]. This may be attributed to the low TMB and poor microenvironment of pancreatic cancer. Preclinical studies have indicated that chemotherapy can induce immunogenic apoptosis of tumor cells, enhancing T-cell infiltration, and reactivity [13–15]. Thus, combining chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may enhance the immune response against tumors in pancreatic cancer. However, the results of these combination therapies were disappointing. Wainberg et al. [16] reported that the combination of nivolumab and gemcitabine or nab-paclitaxel did not improve the response rate of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, while Weiss et al. [17] reported a slightly improved response rate to chemoimmunotherapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Therefore, studies combining ICIs with novel therapeutics to improve clinical treatment efficacy are emerging in preclinical and clinical settings [18–21].

Radiotherapy (RT) has a long history in the treatment of tumors. RT has been reported to be a beneficial treatment for many types of cancers [22, 23] and can improve the local control rate and delay postoperative recurrence. Although the use of RT alone for pancreatic cancer treatment is rare due to the spatial location of the cancer, the benefits of RT alone or combined with chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer treatment are still under debate [23–25]. Therefore, the combination of RT and ICIs may provide a rational strategy for pancreatic cancer treatment. Preclinical studies have shown that the addition of RT to immunotherapy can have a synergistic effect and enhance antitumor activity [26–28]. It is hypothesized that local RT can induce immunological death of tumors, increase the presentation of neoantigens within the tumor stroma and improve immune cell infiltration, thereby stimulating antitumor immunity [29].

In recent clinical trials, the combination of immunotherapy with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has demonstrated clinically meaningful antitumor activity and favorable safety profiles [30, 31]. This combination has resulted in a disease control rate of up to 30% in patients with refractory PDAC. A phase II study conducted by our team revealed that PD-1 blockage combined with chemoradiotherapy as a preoperative therapy is potentially effective, resulting in a high ORR and an outstanding R0 resection rate without serious adverse reactions or postoperative complications [32]. Based on successful regimens and promising clinical trials, we conducted this trial. Our objective was to investigate the safety and effectiveness of combining PD-1 blockade with chemoradiotherapy as a second-line therapy for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who did not respond to first-line gemcitabine chemotherapy.

Methods

Patient population

This was a single-arm, open-label, phase II study to determine the safety and efficacy of SOX/anti-PD-1 antibody/hypofractionation radiotherapy in patients with gemcitabine-refractory mPC from February 24, 2021 to August 30, 2023, at the Comprehensive Cancer Centre of Drum Tower Hospital, Clinical Cancer Institute of Nanjing University. Prior to therapy, written informed consent was obtained from all patients. The ethical committee of Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital granted approval for this study. Flow diagram of the study population is shown in Fig. 1. The details of the inclusion and exclusion criteria are presented in Table S1.Fig. 1 Flow diagram of the study population. Abbreviations: CT, computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging

Treatment

Patients received S-1 (25 mg/m2) orally twice/day for 2 weeks, followed by 1 week of rest, intravenous oxaliplatin (130 mg/m2) on day 1 of each 3-week cycle and anti-PD-1 antibody (sintilimab, toripalimab) intravenously (200 mg and 240 mg, respectively) on day 1 of each 3-week cycle. Concurrent radiotherapy was administered to patients after the completion of one cycle of systemic therapy. Computerized tomography (CT) simulation was conducted approximately one week after the first cycle of chemotherapy plus immunotherapy, and a gross target volume (GTV) was generated based on the complete extent of one to three distant metastases per the researchers’ and radiation therapy technologists’ discretion as delineated in each CT phase. A clinical target volume (CTV) was then generated, with a 0.5 cm expansion around the GTV. The planning organ at risk volume (PRV) was then defined as a 1-cm expansion of the gastrointestinal tract, and the planned gross tumor volume (PGTV) was defined as a 0.3-cm expansion from the GTV, with the PRV subtracted. The PTV was defined as a 0.5-cm expansion around the CTV. SBRT was administered daily, with a total dose of 24 Gy/3f delivered at the PGTV and 15 Gy/3f delivered at the PTV concurrently with the second cycle of chemotherapy and immunotherapy.

Treatment interruptions, dose reductions, and supportive care were allowed for effective management of any adverse events (AEs) experienced by patients. Treatment was continued until the occurrence of progressive disease (PD), intolerable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or any other factor necessitating discontinuation of treatment. In patients who experienced grade 3 or higher AEs, treatment was suspended, and AEs were treated until they disappeared or reached grade 1 or 2. If patient experienced grade III hematological toxicity, the chemotherapy dosage is reduced by 20%. For patients experiencing PD, survival data were tracked until completion of the study. For those who discontinued treatment for other reasons, tumor response and safety profiles were evaluated every 2 months until disease progression or completion of the study.

Assessment

The assessment of tumor response via CT scans was carried out according to the RECIST v.1.1 guidelines. This assessment was conducted at baseline and after every two cycles of treatment. The protocol necessitated the measurement of peripheral blood biomarkers at both baseline and after every two cycles of treatment. Blood samples were analyzed for peripheral neutrophil, lymphocyte, NK cell, peripheral blood eosinophil count (PBEC), neutrophil- to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) as well as carbohydrate antigen 19–9 (CA19-9) levels. Patients who had normal CA19-9 levels (< 27 U/mL) at baseline were excluded from the CA19-9 response assessment because they were less likely to display a significant decrease in CA19-9 levels. Furthermore, if the CA19-9 concentration exceeded 27, the response was evaluated. Moreover, immunostaining of PD-L1 with VENTANA PD-L1 (SP263) antibody in tumor biopsies were also performed in 7 patients. PD-L1 positive was defined as tumor cell positivity rate (TC +) higher than 1%. All AEs were recorded and rated based on the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria (NCI-CTCAE) version 5.0. The AEs were graded for severity and evaluated at all patient visits from baseline to the short-term follow-up.

Endpoints

The primary outcome of the trial was progression-free survival (PFS). PFS was defined as survival without any progressive disease from the date of enrollment. The secondary endpoints were safety, median overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR), and objective response rate (ORR). OS was defined as the duration from the date of enrollment to the date of death from any cause. The DCR refers to the percentage of patients with remission and stable disease among the population. The ORR is defined as the proportion of patients who achieve a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) based on the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). The exploratory endpoints included analyses of biomarkers associated with clinical efficacy outcomes.

Statistical analysis

The study is an open-label, single-arm, phase II clinical trial with plans to enroll 25 eligible participants. The sample size was not determined based on statistical hypotheses. The baseline demographic and clinical characteristics will be presented using descriptive analyses such as tables and charts. Statistical analysis was conducted using SAS statistical software version 9.4 by the SAS Institute. In the intention-to-treat population, efficacy and safety outcome analyses were performed on patients who underwent one or more posttreatment scans. Categorical variables, including patients with objective response or adverse events, will be summarized by descriptive statistical analysis with a 95% confidence interval using the Wilson score method. Continuous variables will be expressed as the median (range). Fisher's exact test was employed to assess response differences (ORRs) and other binary outcomes among the clinical subgroups. Furthermore, we generated Kaplan‒Meier plots for PFS and OS, and the log-rank test was used to compare the survival functions among different subgroups. Exploratory univariate analyses were conducted with the log-rank test using the following variables: age, sex, ECOG score, CA19-9, and number of metastatic sites. Responses and adverse events were both aggregated as frequency counts and percentages. The optimal cutoff values for PLR, LMR, and LDH were 125, 2.5, and 200, respectively, and were determined using R Foundation (version 4.0.1) and SPSS software (version 26.0). For all analyses, a p value less than 0.05 was considered indicative of statistical significance.

Results

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics

From February 24, 2021, to August 30, 2023, a cohort of 25 patients diagnosed with mPC was enrolled in our study. Of these, 23 patients included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis received at least one cycle of PD-1 plus SOX therapy and concurrent radiotherapy until their last follow-up on August 30, 2023. The majority of patients (n = 12, 52.2%) were female, with an average age of 65.3 (IQR 53–80) years and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) of 0 (n = 6, 26.1%), 1 (n = 15, 65.2%), or 2 (n = 2, 8.7%). The baseline demographics and clinical characteristics of the patients at treatment initiation are presented in Table 1. This section summarizes the key features and patient recruitment status of our research.Table 1 Baseline patient and demographic and disease characteristics

Characteristic	N = 23	
Age		
Mean (SD)	65.3 (8.00)	
Median [Min, Max]	66.0 [53.0, 80.0]	
Gender		
Female	12 (52.2%)	
Male	11 (47.8%)	
BMI		
Mean (SD)	21.7 (2.66)	
Median [Min, Max]	21.6 [16.0, 27.6]	
Primary site of cancer		
Body	4 (17.4%)	
Body-tail	8 (34.8%)	
Head	8 (34.8%)	
Tail	3 (13.0%)	
Surgery		
NO	20 (87.0%)	
YES	3 (13.0%)	
Duration day of first-line treatment		
Mean (SD)	204 (201)	
Median [Min, Max]	157 [34.0, 1060]	
Radiotherapy site		
Liver	12 (52.2%)	
Not Liver	11 (47.8%)	
Number of distant metastases		
Mean (SD)	1.61 (1.08)	
Median [Min, Max]	1.00 [0, 4.00]	
BaselineCA199		
Mean (SD)	3450 (8760)	
Median [Min, Max]	445 [0.600, 41700]	
BestefficacyCA199		
Mean (SD)	2570 (3470)	
Median [Min, Max]	577 [2.00, 11700]	
ChangeOfCA199		
Mean (SD)	-873 (8050)	
Median [Min, Max]	-0.0600 [-36200, 6670]	
ΔCA199		
Decrease	12 (52.2%)	
Increase	11 (47.8%)	

Efficacy

A total of 23 patients were included in the final analysis. At the time of data cutoff, 7 patients achieved a PR, 9 patients achieved stable disease (SD), and 7 patients had progressive disease (PD). The ORR was 30.43%, and the DCR was 69.57% (Table 2). The overall treatment results are presented using swimmer charts in Fig. 2a. Notably, four exceptional responders had a continuing response after inclusion and are still alive. Regarding survival outcomes, the median PFS and OS were 5.48 (95% CI, 3 to not reached) and 6.57 months (95% CI, 4.46 to 17.4), respectively. The Kaplan‒Meier analysis of PFS and OS is shown in Fig. 2b‒c.Table 2 Statistical associations between baseline NLR, PLR, LMR, LDH, and tumor response

	NLR N (%)	PRL N (%)	LMR N (%)	LDH N (%)	
Total(N = 23) N(%)	 ≤ 3	 > 3	P-value	 < 125	 ≥ 125	P-value	 ≤ 2.5	 > 2.5	P-value	 ≤ 200	 > 200	P-value	
Best overall response	
CR	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)		0(0)	0(0)		0(0)	0(0)		0(0)	0(0)		
PR	7(30.43)	5 (71.43)	2 (28.57)		6(85.71)	1(14.29)		7(100)	0(0)		1(14.28)	6(85.71)		
SD	9(39.14)	7 (77.78)	2 (22.22)		2(22.22)	7(77.78)		4(44.44)	5(55.56)		3(33.33)	6(66.64)		
PD	7(30.43)	3 (42.85)	4 (57.15)		3(42.85)	4(57.15)		2(28.57)	5(71.43)		6(85.71)	1(14.29)		
DCR(CR + PR + SD)	69.57	12 (80)	4 (50%)	0.1819	72.72	66.67	1	84.61	50	0.1688	40	92.3	0.0186	
ORR(CR + PR)	30.43	5 (33.3)	2 (25%)	1	54.55%	8.33%	0.0272	53.84	0	0.0075	10	46.15	0.0886	
P values in bold indicates the statistically significant differences (P < 0.05), which indicate better results than other groups

Fig. 2 Treatment response and survival analysis A Duration of responses of patients in the ITT population. The length of each bar represents the duration of treatment of each patient. B and C The Kaplan–Meier curves of B PFS and C OS in all enrolled patients

Safety

Hematological and nonhematological toxicities during our treatment are summarized in Table 3. No patients died of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). A total of 23 patients experienced TRAEs of any grade, possibly due to the poor physical condition of the patient after the failure of first-line treatment. Among them, 7 patients had grade 3/4 TRAEs. The most commonly observed grade 3/4 TRAEs included lymphocytopenia (22%), thrombocytopenia (17%), anemia (13%), increased aspartate transaminase (AST) levels (13%), leukocytopenia (9%), neutropenia (9%), hypopotassemia (4%), toxic epidermal necrolysis (4%), and vomiting (4%). None of the patients experienced any serious immune-related AEs, such as autoimmune myocarditis or pneumonitis.Table 3 Summary of adverse events by severity

Adverse events	Any grade, n (%)	Grades 3–4, n (%)	Treatment-related grade ≥ 3, n (%)	
Hematological toxicity				
Anemic	14(61)	3(13)	3(13)	
Thrombocytopenia	13(57)	4(17)	4(17)	
Leukocytopenia	11(48)	2(9)	2(9)	
Neutropenia	9(39)	2(9)	2(9)	
Non-hematological				
Fatigue	12(52)	0	0	
Poor appetite	10(43)	0	0	
Vomiting	10(43)	0	0	
Nausea	7(30)	0	0	
Diarrhea	6(26)	0	0	
Rash	6(26)	0	0	
Hyponatremia	5(22)	0	0	
Increased AST level	4(17)	2(9)	0	
Numbness	4(17)	0	0	
Fever	4(17)	0	0	
Pigmentation	4(17)	0	0	
Constipation	3(13)	0	0	
Increased ALT level	2(9)	0	0	
Insomnia	2(9)	0	0	
Increased total bilirubin	1(4)	0	0	
Hypopotassemia	1(4)	0	0	
Toxic epidermal necrolysis	0	1(4)	1(4)	

Association between CA19-9 decline and tumor response

CA19-9 is a widely recognized biomarker because of its predictive value and ability to indicate abnormal glycosylation in pancreatic cancer [33]. Notably, a normal baseline CA19-9 level and decreased CA19-9 level after treatment is associated with prolonged survival in pancreatic cancer patients. In our own investigation, we confirmed that changes in the baseline and optimal efficacy assessment times of CA19-9 levels were associated with improved overall survival and progression-free survival rates. Specifically, patients with a decrease in CA19-9 reached an mOS of 14.29 vs. 5.34 months in patients without a decrease in CA19-9 (p = 0.0033), and patients with a decrease in CA19-9 reached an mPFS of 10.6 vs. 3.1 months in patients without a decrease in CA19-9 (p = 0.0073) (Fig. 3a-b).Fig. 3 Association between peripheral blood biomarkers and treatment response A and B The Kaplan–Meier curves of A PFS and B OS of patients stratified by CA19-9 change between baseline and optimal efficacy assessment time (decline vs. elevated). C and D The Kaplan–Meier curves of C PFS and D OS of patients stratified by PBEC (declined vs. elevated). (E and F) The Kaplan–Meier curves of E PFS and F OS of patients stratified by Neutrophil (declined vs. elevated). G and H The Kaplan–Meier curves of G PFS and H OS of patients stratified by NK cell (declined vs. elevated). I and J The Kaplan–Meier curves of I PFS and J OS of patients stratified by CD3 (declined vs. elevated). K and L The Kaplan–Meier curves of K PFS and L OS of patients stratified by CD4/CD8 (declined vs. elevated)

Associations between peripheral blood biomarkers and tumor response

In clinical settings, the primary biomarkers used to forecast the effectiveness of immunotherapy typically include the expression of PD-L1, the level of TMB, and the status of MSI [34]. In our study, we performed immunofluorescence histochemical (IHC) analysis at the protein level on tumor biopsies from 7 patients before treatment, and one of them had biopsy after treatment due to insufficient tumor tissue obtained from biopsies. All of these 7 patients were PD-L1 negative and one patient showed high expression of PD-L1 after 3 cycles of immunotherapy combined chemoradiotherapy [35]. Given the relatively low expression levels of PD-L1 in our study group, we refrained from exploring its correlation with tumor response.

In the prespecified exploratory analysis, we assessed the correlation between clinical response and peripheral blood biomarkers that are known to be associated with the response to immunotherapy. Reportedly, PBEC is associated with a better response to immunotherapy for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer [36]. Therefore, we sought to investigate the relationship between alterations in PBEC during treatment and the clinical response. Indeed, changes in PBEC during treatment were associated with a better OS trend; however, this difference was not statistically significant. The mOS was 12.97 months for patients with elevated PBECs and 6.53 months for patients with decreased PBECs (p = 0.27; Fig. 3c-d). We hypothesized that the limited sample size in our study may have influenced predictive ability. Therefore, further research with larger samples is required to strengthen our findings. Moreover, we also investigate the relationship between alterations in Neutrophil, NK cell, CD3 + T-cell, and CD4/CD8 ratio during treatment and the clinical response. None of these biomarkers can help to estimate the efficacy of the therapy (Fig. S1a-h).

Associations between pretreatment inflammatory markers and tumor response

In our study, analysis of the relationship between inflammatory markers in peripheral blood and treatment response was conducted. A higher ORR was observed in patients with PLR > 125 (vs PLR ≤ 125, P = 0.0237), LMR > 2.5 (vs LMR ≤ 2.5, P = 0.0075); however, the ORR in these groups was not statistically significant. Furthermore, a higher DCR (92.3.0% vs. 40%, P = 0.0186) was observed in patients with LDH > 200. However, the ORR in this group did not reach statistical significance (Table 2). Patients with LDH-H (LDH > 200) had superior mPFS than those with LDH-L (LDH ≤ 200) (mPFS 8.01 vs. 2.73 months, P = 0.047) (Fig. 4e). Patients with PLR-H (PLR > 125) and LMR-H (LMR > 2.5) had superior mOS than those with PLR-L (PLR ≤ 125) (mOS 11.5 vs. 5.81 months, P = 0.047) and LMR-L (LMR ≤ 2.5) (mOS 11.5 vs. 4.46 months, P = 0.003) (Fig. 4b, d).Fig. 4 Kaplan–Meier analysis of survival and pretreatment inflammatory markers. PFS and OS based on PLR A-B, LMR C-D, and LDH level E–F. Abbreviations: PFS progression-free survival, OS overall survival, PLR platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, LMR lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio, LDH lactate dehydrogenase, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval

Discussion

Pancreatic cancer is a difficult disease to treat, with low survival rates and reduced quality of life due to internal invasion and related complications. Almost all PC patients exhibit disease progression within a few months after receiving traditional treatments [37]. Surgical resection can improve patients’ long-term survival, but only a few patients can undergo surgical resection, about 50% of whom eventually experience tumor recurrence even after receiving adjuvant chemotherapy [38]. Thus, PC is expected to become the second most common cause of cancer-related death by 2030 [39]. Recently, there have been dramatic improvements in preoperative therapy for pancreatic cancer through the combination of chemoimmunotherapy with concurrent radiotherapy. However, for advanced pancreatic cancer refractory to first-line therapy, effective treatment therapy is lacking, with an average ORR of 14%. Hence, new treatments for refractory pancreatic cancer are urgently needed to improve survival.

Immunotherapy has shown remarkable treatment efficacy in numerous cancers. However, due to inherent genetic mutations and the immunosuppressive environment, immunotherapy alone or combined with chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer has been disappointing [10]. In a phase 2 study conducted by Philip Agop Philip, the ORR was 3.1% in patients treated with combination immuno-oncology therapy (anti–programmed death–ligand 1 and anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen 4) [40]. Recently, the emergence of immunotherapy has led to increased attention focused on radiotherapy due to its ability to induce an immune response in addition to its cytotoxic effects [41]. To date, the optimal dose and fraction of radiotherapy for enhancing the effectiveness of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors remains undetermined. Preclinical studies revealed that radiation doses exceeding 5 Gy per fraction can generate in situ vaccination effects, improve T-cell infiltration, and increase PD-L1 expression [42, 43]. However, a higher single dose per fraction, 15 Gy per fraction, can inhibit the antitumor response and suppress the immune environment, yielding results associated with poor prognosis [44]. Preclinical and current clinical data suggest that SBRT at a dose of 8 Gy may act as a potent immunomodulator in advanced NSCLC. This treatment modality has the potential to enhance the immune response facilitated by immune checkpoint inhibitors as evidenced by recent studies [45–48]. The increased infiltration of lymphocytes can result in the transformation of tumors into inflamed tissues that are highly receptive to T-cell activation and assault. Thus, in our study, we chose an 8 Gy*3f radiation regimen for combination therapy. Regrettably, because insufficient tissue specimens were obtained before or after SBRT, we were unable to explore the impact of radiation therapy on the tumor microenvironment in these individuals. In addition, highly effective responses to immunotherapy can result in decreased tumor burden [49]. Chemotherapy can also induce immunogenic death of tumor cells and further enhance immunotherapy effects. The decreased tumor burden induced by RT and chemotherapy may contribute to enhanced responses to subsequent PD-1 antibody immunotherapy. Thus, combining immunotherapy, hypofractionated radiotherapy, and chemotherapy might be a promising approach for treating refractory metastatic pancreatic cancer patients.

Our study suggested that the combined approach of hypofractionated radiotherapy, anti-PD-1 antibody therapy, and chemotherapy provides noteworthy antitumor effectiveness and causes durable clinical response. In a phase 2 clinical trial, the clinical benefits and safety of nivolumab with or without ipilimumab in combination with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in patients with refractory mPC were evaluated. The ORR and DCR in nivolumab with ipilimumab in combination with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) treatment group. The median PFS and OS were 1.6 (95% CI, 1.6 to 2.8) and 3.8 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 6.5), respectively [30]. Yoo and colleagues [50] did a randomized phase 2 trial comparing modified versions of FOLFOX (folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) and FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan) regimens for treatment of gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer. However, in that study, the median overall survival was short (3·5 months with FOLFOX and 3·9 months with FOLFIRI). Moreover, in a global, phase 3, randomized clinical trial, the median OS and PFS in patients assigned nanoliposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and folinic acid was 6·1 months (95% CI 4·8–8·9) and 4·9 months [4·2–5·6]. Besides, The ORR was 16%. [5] The ORR and DCR of our study were 69.5% and 30.4%, respectively, which were greater than those of previously reported clinical trials. In addition, the mPFS of our study was 5.48 months, which is greater than the 4.9 months reported for NAPOLI-1. Notably, three patients did not reach mPFS at the last follow-up (August 30, 2023), and two patients had PFS greater than 1 year.

To our knowledge, decreased CA19-9 was associated with superior survival outcomes and clinical response in pancreatic cancer patients who received a preoperative treatment regimen of PD-1 blockade plus chemoradiotherapy, providing a viable predictive biomarker [32]. In our study, we also observed a significant association between decreased CA19-9 and prolonged PFS or OS in pancreatic cancer patients who received second-line therapy, which means that CA19-9 might be a viable predictive biomarker for second-line treatment. Early studies on ICIs have established a positive association between increased PBEC and improved survival rates in patients with melanoma [36]. In addition, an increased PBEC after ICI treatment has a positive correlation with a superior response to ICIs in several types of cancer [51, 52]. Eosinophils can infiltrate tumors and directly interact with tumor cells or indirectly reshape the tumor immune microenvironment [53]. However, the association between an increase in the PBEC and a superior response to ICIs in pancreatic cancer patients has not been reported. Thus, in our research, we observed that patients with elevated PBECs exhibited better OS trends, but the difference was not statistically significant, which might be due to the limited sample size.

Recently, inflammatory response factors, such as NLR, PLR, LMR, and LDH were found to be associated with tumor response and patients’ prognosis. In a retrospective study of peripheral blood markers predictive of the outcome in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who underwent anti-PD-1 therapy, they found that patients had baseline NLR ≤ 2 achieved higher ORR and DCR, and patients with PLR ≤ 135, LMR > 2, and LDH ≤ 265 could also observed a higher DCR [54]. Given the crucial role of inflammation in the initiation, promotion, and advancement of cancer, we undertook analysis to investigate the link between peripheral blood inflammatory markers and clinical response. Intriguingly, we discovered that the initial PLR, LMR, and LDH level could forecast tumor response. In agreement with previous findings, higher LMR of our study cohort proved to be associated with higher ORR and mOS. Moreover, it should be emphasized that no clear cutoff values of the LMR have been agreed on. When examining our study cohort, we identified the optimal cutoff value to be 2.5, which is in the range of and in very good agreement with previously reported values varying from 2.05 to 4.62 [55]. Another inflammatory-based marker to be considered is represented by the PLR. In a meta-analysis of 17 cohorts, a low PLR was linked to longer mOS (HR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.17–1.40, p = 0.00001). Cutoff values ranged from 126 to 300 [56]. In our study cohort, higher PLR was associated with superior mOS and higher ORR. We also found that pretreatment LDH levels appeared to be associated with DCR and OS, which did not align with previous reported data[57].

There are several limitations that should be acknowledged when interpreting our study. First, the small sample size and limited data may not accurately represent a broader population of pancreatic patients. Second, due to the invasive nature of sampling, we were unable to acquire tumor tissue before and after integrated immunotherapy. Hence, we could not investigate whether MSI/dMMR status and PD-L1 expression were altered following this treatment. As such, the association between these biomarkers and the benefits of our therapy could not be analyzed. Third, our study did not include a control group, and we only compared our results with data reported in previous studies. Finally, further research is required to elucidate the underlying mechanisms of our treatment.

In summary, this is a prospective clinical trial in which a regimen of chemoimmunotherapy concurrent with radiotherapy was adopted for patients with pancreatic cancer. These findings demonstrate notable potential for improving treatment efficacy in mPC patients after failure of first-line chemotherapy. Besides, the pretreatment peripheral blood marker NLR and decreased CA199 level during treatment might correlate with tumor response in patients treated with this regime.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.Supplementary file1 (DOCX 14 KB)

Supplementary file2 (TIF 7058 KB)

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed by QW, FT, LQ, YZ, JN, JL, BL, and JD. Data analysis was performed by QW, FT, WK, BL, and JD. The first draft of the manuscript was written by QW, and all authors commented and edited previous version of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 82103687); the CHEN Xiaoping Foundation for the Development of Science and Technology of Hubei Province (No. CXPJJH11900001-2019101), the Special Fund of Health Science and Technology Development of Nanjing (No. YKK20080), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 82072926), and the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (No. BK20191114), Nanjing Medical Science and technology development Foundation (No. YKK23077).

Declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by The Committee on Medical Ethics of Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Qin Wang and Fan Tong are contributed equally to the article.
==== Refs
References

1. Siegel RL Miller KD Jemal A Cancer statistics, 2020 CA Cancer J Clin 2020 70 1 7 30 10.3322/caac.21590 31912902
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2020) Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin 70(1):7–3031912902 10.3322/caac.21590
2. Feig C Gopinathan A Neesse A Chan DS Cook N Tuveson DA The pancreas cancer microenvironment Clin Cancer Res 2012 18 16 4266 4276 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-3114 22896693
Feig C, Gopinathan A, Neesse A, Chan DS, Cook N, Tuveson DA (2012) The pancreas cancer microenvironment. Clin Cancer Res 18(16):4266–427622896693 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-3114
3. Matsuo Y Ochi N Sawai H Yasuda A Takahashi H Funahashi H Takeyama H Tong Z Guha S CXCL8/IL-8 and CXCL12/SDF-1alpha co-operatively promote invasiveness and angiogenesis in pancreatic cancer Int J Cancer 2009 124 4 853 861 10.1002/ijc.24040 19035451
Matsuo Y, Ochi N, Sawai H, Yasuda A, Takahashi H, Funahashi H, Takeyama H, Tong Z, Guha S (2009) CXCL8/IL-8 and CXCL12/SDF-1alpha co-operatively promote invasiveness and angiogenesis in pancreatic cancer. Int J Cancer 124(4):853–86119035451 10.1002/ijc.24040
4. Kamisawa T Wood LD Itoi T Takaori K Pancreatic cancer Lancet 2016 388 10039 73 85 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00141-0 26830752
Kamisawa T, Wood LD, Itoi T, Takaori K (2016) Pancreatic cancer. Lancet 388(10039):73–8526830752 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00141-0
5. Wang-Gillam A Li CP Bodoky G Dean A Shan YS Jameson G Macarulla T Lee KH Cunningham D Blanc JF Hubner RA Chiu CF Schwartsmann G Siveke JT Braiteh F Moyo V Belanger B Dhindsa N Bayever E Von Hoff DD Chen LT Nanoliposomal irinotecan with fluorouracil and folinic acid in metastatic pancreatic cancer after previous gemcitabine-based therapy (NAPOLI-1): a global, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial Lancet 2016 387 10018 545 557 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00986-1 26615328
Wang-Gillam A, Li CP, Bodoky G, Dean A, Shan YS, Jameson G, Macarulla T, Lee KH, Cunningham D, Blanc JF, Hubner RA, Chiu CF, Schwartsmann G, Siveke JT, Braiteh F, Moyo V, Belanger B, Dhindsa N, Bayever E, Von Hoff DD, Chen LT (2016) Nanoliposomal irinotecan with fluorouracil and folinic acid in metastatic pancreatic cancer after previous gemcitabine-based therapy (NAPOLI-1): a global, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet 387(10018):545–55726615328 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00986-1
6. Tempero MA Malafa MP Al-Hawary M Behrman SW Benson AB Cardin DB Chiorean EG Chung V Czito B Del Chiaro M Dillhoff M Donahue TR Dotan E Ferrone CR Fountzilas C Hardacre J Hawkins WG Klute K Ko AH Kunstman JW LoConte N Lowy AM Moravek C Nakakura EK Narang AK Obando J Polanco PM Reddy S Reyngold M Scaife C Shen J Vollmer C Wolff RA Wolpin BM Lynn B George GV Pancreatic adenocarcinoma, version 2.2021, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021 19 4 439 457 10.6004/jnccn.2021.0017 33845462
Tempero MA, Malafa MP, Al-Hawary M, Behrman SW, Benson AB, Cardin DB, Chiorean EG, Chung V, Czito B, Del Chiaro M, Dillhoff M, Donahue TR, Dotan E, Ferrone CR, Fountzilas C, Hardacre J, Hawkins WG, Klute K, Ko AH, Kunstman JW, LoConte N, Lowy AM, Moravek C, Nakakura EK, Narang AK, Obando J, Polanco PM, Reddy S, Reyngold M, Scaife C, Shen J, Vollmer C, Wolff RA, Wolpin BM, Lynn B, George GV (2021) Pancreatic adenocarcinoma, version 2.2021, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 19(4):439–45733845462 10.6004/jnccn.2021.0017
7. Ge F Xu N Bai Y Ba Y Zhang Y Li F Xu H Jia R Wang Y Lin L Xu J S-1 as monotherapy or in combination with leucovorin as second-line treatment in gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer: a randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase II study Oncologist 2014 19 11 1133 1134 10.1634/theoncologist.2014-0223 25273077
Ge F, Xu N, Bai Y, Ba Y, Zhang Y, Li F, Xu H, Jia R, Wang Y, Lin L, Xu J (2014) S-1 as monotherapy or in combination with leucovorin as second-line treatment in gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer: a randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase II study. Oncologist 19(11):1133–113425273077 10.1634/theoncologist.2014-0223
8. Morizane C Okusaka T Furuse J Ishii H Ueno H Ikeda M Nakachi K Najima M Ogura T Suzuki E A phase II study of S-1 in gemcitabine-refractory metastatic pancreatic cancer Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2009 63 2 313 319 10.1007/s00280-008-0741-7 18398614
Morizane C, Okusaka T, Furuse J, Ishii H, Ueno H, Ikeda M, Nakachi K, Najima M, Ogura T, Suzuki E (2009) A phase II study of S-1 in gemcitabine-refractory metastatic pancreatic cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 63(2):313–31918398614 10.1007/s00280-008-0741-7
9. Le DT Durham JN Smith KN Wang H Bartlett BR Aulakh LK Lu S Kemberling H Wilt C Luber BS Wong F Azad NS Rucki AA Laheru D Donehower R Zaheer A Fisher GA Crocenzi TS Lee JJ Greten TF Duffy AG Ciombor KK Eyring AD Lam BH Joe A Kang SP Holdhoff M Danilova L Cope L Meyer C Zhou S Goldberg RM Armstrong DK Bever KM Fader AN Taube J Housseau F Spetzler D Xiao N Pardoll DM Papadopoulos N Kinzler KW Eshleman JR Vogelstein B Anders RA Diaz LA Mismatch repair deficiency predicts response of solid tumors to PD-1 blockade Science 2017 357 6349 409 413 10.1126/science.aan6733 28596308
Le DT, Durham JN, Smith KN, Wang H, Bartlett BR, Aulakh LK, Lu S, Kemberling H, Wilt C, Luber BS, Wong F, Azad NS, Rucki AA, Laheru D, Donehower R, Zaheer A, Fisher GA, Crocenzi TS, Lee JJ, Greten TF, Duffy AG, Ciombor KK, Eyring AD, Lam BH, Joe A, Kang SP, Holdhoff M, Danilova L, Cope L, Meyer C, Zhou S, Goldberg RM, Armstrong DK, Bever KM, Fader AN, Taube J, Housseau F, Spetzler D, Xiao N, Pardoll DM, Papadopoulos N, Kinzler KW, Eshleman JR, Vogelstein B, Anders RA, Diaz LA (2017) Mismatch repair deficiency predicts response of solid tumors to PD-1 blockade. Science 357(6349):409–41328596308 10.1126/science.aan6733
10. Brahmer JR Tykodi SS Chow LQ Hwu WJ Topalian SL Hwu P Drake CG Camacho LH Kauh J Odunsi K Pitot HC Hamid O Bhatia S Martins R Eaton K Chen S Salay TM Alaparthy S Grosso JF Korman AJ Parker SM Agrawal S Goldberg SM Pardoll DM Gupta A Wigginton JM Safety and activity of anti-PD-L1 antibody in patients with advanced cancer N Engl J Med 2012 366 26 2455 2465 10.1056/NEJMoa1200694 22658128
Brahmer JR, Tykodi SS, Chow LQ, Hwu WJ, Topalian SL, Hwu P, Drake CG, Camacho LH, Kauh J, Odunsi K, Pitot HC, Hamid O, Bhatia S, Martins R, Eaton K, Chen S, Salay TM, Alaparthy S, Grosso JF, Korman AJ, Parker SM, Agrawal S, Goldberg SM, Pardoll DM, Gupta A, Wigginton JM (2012) Safety and activity of anti-PD-L1 antibody in patients with advanced cancer. N Engl J Med 366(26):2455–246522658128 10.1056/NEJMoa1200694
11. Royal RE Levy C Turner K Mathur A Hughes M Kammula US Sherry RM Topalian SL Yang JC Lowy I Rosenberg SA Phase 2 trial of single agent Ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma J Immunother 2010 33 8 828 833 10.1097/CJI.0b013e3181eec14c 20842054
Royal RE, Levy C, Turner K, Mathur A, Hughes M, Kammula US, Sherry RM, Topalian SL, Yang JC, Lowy I, Rosenberg SA (2010) Phase 2 trial of single agent Ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Immunother 33(8):828–83320842054 10.1097/CJI.0b013e3181eec14c
12. Marabelle A Le DT Ascierto PA Di Giacomo AM De Jesus-Acosta A Delord JP Geva R Gottfried M Penel N Hansen AR Piha-Paul SA Doi T Gao B Chung HC Lopez-Martin J Bang YJ Frommer RS Shah M Ghori R Joe AK Pruitt SK Diaz LA Jr Efficacy of Pembrolizumab in patients with noncolorectal high microsatellite instability/mismatch repair-deficient cancer: results from the phase II KEYNOTE-158 study J Clin Oncol 2020 38 1 1 10 10.1200/JCO.19.02105 31682550
Marabelle A, Le DT, Ascierto PA, Di Giacomo AM, De Jesus-Acosta A, Delord JP, Geva R, Gottfried M, Penel N, Hansen AR, Piha-Paul SA, Doi T, Gao B, Chung HC, Lopez-Martin J, Bang YJ, Frommer RS, Shah M, Ghori R, Joe AK, Pruitt SK, Diaz LA Jr (2020) Efficacy of Pembrolizumab in patients with noncolorectal high microsatellite instability/mismatch repair-deficient cancer: results from the phase II KEYNOTE-158 study. J Clin Oncol 38(1):1–1031682550 10.1200/JCO.19.02105
13. Nowak AK Lake RA Marzo AL Scott B Heath WR Collins EJ Frelinger JA Robinson BW Induction of tumor cell apoptosis in vivo increases tumor antigen cross-presentation, cross-priming rather than cross-tolerizing host tumor-specific CD8 T cells J Immunol 2003 170 10 4905 4913 10.4049/jimmunol.170.10.4905 12734333
Nowak AK, Lake RA, Marzo AL, Scott B, Heath WR, Collins EJ, Frelinger JA, Robinson BW (2003) Induction of tumor cell apoptosis in vivo increases tumor antigen cross-presentation, cross-priming rather than cross-tolerizing host tumor-specific CD8 T cells. J Immunol 170(10):4905–491312734333 10.4049/jimmunol.170.10.4905
14. Nowak AK Robinson BW Lake RA Synergy between chemotherapy and immunotherapy in the treatment of established murine solid tumors Cancer Res 2003 63 15 4490 4496 12907622
Nowak AK, Robinson BW, Lake RA (2003) Synergy between chemotherapy and immunotherapy in the treatment of established murine solid tumors. Cancer Res 63(15):4490–449612907622
15. Plate JM Plate AE Shott S Bograd S Harris JE Effect of gemcitabine on immune cells in subjects with adenocarcinoma of the pancreas Cancer Immunol Immunother 2005 54 9 915 925 10.1007/s00262-004-0638-1 15782312
Plate JM, Plate AE, Shott S, Bograd S, Harris JE (2005) Effect of gemcitabine on immune cells in subjects with adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Cancer Immunol Immunother 54(9):915–92515782312 10.1007/s00262-004-0638-1
16. Wainberg ZA Hochster HS Kim EJ George B Kaylan A Chiorean EG Waterhouse DM Guiterrez M Parikh A Jain R Carrizosa DR Soliman HH Lila T Reiss DJ Pierce DW Bhore R Banerjee S Lyons L Louis CU Ong TJ O'Dwyer PJ Open-label, phase I study of nivolumab combined with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer Clin Cancer Res 2020 26 18 4814 4822 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-0099 32554514
Wainberg ZA, Hochster HS, Kim EJ, George B, Kaylan A, Chiorean EG, Waterhouse DM, Guiterrez M, Parikh A, Jain R, Carrizosa DR, Soliman HH, Lila T, Reiss DJ, Pierce DW, Bhore R, Banerjee S, Lyons L, Louis CU, Ong TJ, O’Dwyer PJ (2020) Open-label, phase I study of nivolumab combined with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer. Clin Cancer Res 26(18):4814–482232554514 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-0099
17. Weiss GJ Blaydorn L Beck J Bornemann-Kolatzki K Urnovitz H Schutz E Khemka V Phase Ib/II study of gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel, and pembrolizumab in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma Invest New Drugs 2018 36 1 96 102 10.1007/s10637-017-0525-1 29119276
Weiss GJ, Blaydorn L, Beck J, Bornemann-Kolatzki K, Urnovitz H, Schutz E, Khemka V (2018) Phase Ib/II study of gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel, and pembrolizumab in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Invest New Drugs 36(1):96–10229119276 10.1007/s10637-017-0525-1
18. Pushalkar S Hundeyin M Daley D Zambirinis CP Kurz E Mishra A Mohan N Aykut B Usyk M Torres LE Werba G Zhang K Guo Y Li Q Akkad N Lall S Wadowski B Gutierrez J Kochen Rossi JA Herzog JW Diskin B Torres-Hernandez A Leinwand J Wang W Taunk PS Savadkar S Janal M Saxena A Li X Cohen D Sartor RB Saxena D Miller G The Pancreatic cancer microbiome promotes oncogenesis by induction of innate and adaptive immune suppression Cancer Discov 2018 8 4 403 416 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-17-1134 29567829
Pushalkar S, Hundeyin M, Daley D, Zambirinis CP, Kurz E, Mishra A, Mohan N, Aykut B, Usyk M, Torres LE, Werba G, Zhang K, Guo Y, Li Q, Akkad N, Lall S, Wadowski B, Gutierrez J, Kochen Rossi JA, Herzog JW, Diskin B, Torres-Hernandez A, Leinwand J, Wang W, Taunk PS, Savadkar S, Janal M, Saxena A, Li X, Cohen D, Sartor RB, Saxena D, Miller G (2018) The Pancreatic cancer microbiome promotes oncogenesis by induction of innate and adaptive immune suppression. Cancer Discov 8(4):403–41629567829 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-17-1134
19. Varghese AM Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T and other T cell strategies for pancreas adenocarcinoma Chin Clin Oncol 2017 6 6 66 10.21037/cco.2017.09.04 29156888
Varghese AM (2017) Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T and other T cell strategies for pancreas adenocarcinoma. Chin Clin Oncol 6(6):6629156888 10.21037/cco.2017.09.04
20. Bahrami A Khazaei M Bagherieh F Ghayour-Mobarhan M Maftouh M Hassanian SM Avan A Targeting stroma in pancreatic cancer: Promises and failures of targeted therapies J Cell Physiol 2017 232 11 2931 2937 10.1002/jcp.25798 28083912
Bahrami A, Khazaei M, Bagherieh F, Ghayour-Mobarhan M, Maftouh M, Hassanian SM, Avan A (2017) Targeting stroma in pancreatic cancer: Promises and failures of targeted therapies. J Cell Physiol 232(11):2931–293728083912 10.1002/jcp.25798
21. Tang J Yu JX Hubbard-Lucey VM Neftelinov ST Hodge JP Lin Y Trial watch: The clinical trial landscape for PD1/PDL1 immune checkpoint inhibitors Nat Rev Drug Discov 2018 17 12 854 855 10.1038/nrd.2018.210 30482962
Tang J, Yu JX, Hubbard-Lucey VM, Neftelinov ST, Hodge JP, Lin Y (2018) Trial watch: The clinical trial landscape for PD1/PDL1 immune checkpoint inhibitors. Nat Rev Drug Discov 17(12):854–85530482962 10.1038/nrd.2018.210
22. Mikhail S Wei L Salem ME Bekaii-Saab T Outcomes of definitive chemoradiation in patients with esophageal cancer Dis Esophagus 2017 30 2 1 7 28881909
Mikhail S, Wei L, Salem ME, Bekaii-Saab T (2017) Outcomes of definitive chemoradiation in patients with esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus 30(2):1–728881909
23. Hammel P Huguet F van Laethem JL Goldstein D Glimelius B Artru P Borbath I Bouche O Shannon J Andre T Mineur L Chibaudel B Bonnetain F Louvet C Effect of chemoradiotherapy vs chemotherapy on survival in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer controlled after 4 months of gemcitabine with or without erlotinib: the LAP07 randomized clinical trial JAMA 2016 315 17 1844 53 10.1001/jama.2016.4324 27139057
Hammel P, Huguet F, van Laethem JL, Goldstein D, Glimelius B, Artru P, Borbath I, Bouche O, Shannon J, Andre T, Mineur L, Chibaudel B, Bonnetain F, Louvet C (2016) Effect of chemoradiotherapy vs chemotherapy on survival in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer controlled after 4 months of gemcitabine with or without erlotinib: the LAP07 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 315(17):1844–5327139057 10.1001/jama.2016.4324
24. Landau E Kalnicki S The evolving role of radiation in pancreatic cancer Surg Clin North Am 2018 98 1 113 125 10.1016/j.suc.2017.09.008 29191268
Landau E, Kalnicki S (2018) The evolving role of radiation in pancreatic cancer. Surg Clin North Am 98(1):113–12529191268 10.1016/j.suc.2017.09.008
25. Van Laethem JL Hammel P Mornex F Azria D Van Tienhoven G Vergauwe P Peeters M Polus M Praet M Mauer M Collette L Budach V Lutz M Van Cutsem E Haustermans K Adjuvant gemcitabine alone versus gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy after curative resection for pancreatic cancer: a randomized EORTC-40013-22012/FFCD-9203/GERCOR phase II study J Clin Oncol 2010 28 29 4450 4456 10.1200/JCO.2010.30.3446 20837948
Van Laethem JL, Hammel P, Mornex F, Azria D, Van Tienhoven G, Vergauwe P, Peeters M, Polus M, Praet M, Mauer M, Collette L, Budach V, Lutz M, Van Cutsem E, Haustermans K (2010) Adjuvant gemcitabine alone versus gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy after curative resection for pancreatic cancer: a randomized EORTC-40013-22012/FFCD-9203/GERCOR phase II study. J Clin Oncol 28(29):4450–445620837948 10.1200/JCO.2010.30.3446
26. Macherla S Laks S Naqash AR Bulumulle A Zervos E Muzaffar M Emerging role of immune checkpoint blockade in pancreatic cancer Int J Mol Sci 2018 19 11 3505 10.3390/ijms19113505 30405053
Macherla S, Laks S, Naqash AR, Bulumulle A, Zervos E, Muzaffar M (2018) Emerging role of immune checkpoint blockade in pancreatic cancer. Int J Mol Sci 19(11):350530405053 10.3390/ijms19113505
27. Postow MA Callahan MK Barker CA Yamada Y Yuan J Kitano S Mu Z Rasalan T Adamow M Ritter E Sedrak C Jungbluth AA Chua R Yang AS Roman RA Rosner S Benson B Allison JP Lesokhin AM Gnjatic S Wolchok JD Immunologic correlates of the abscopal effect in a patient with melanoma N Engl J Med 2012 366 10 925 931 10.1056/NEJMoa1112824 22397654
Postow MA, Callahan MK, Barker CA, Yamada Y, Yuan J, Kitano S, Mu Z, Rasalan T, Adamow M, Ritter E, Sedrak C, Jungbluth AA, Chua R, Yang AS, Roman RA, Rosner S, Benson B, Allison JP, Lesokhin AM, Gnjatic S, Wolchok JD (2012) Immunologic correlates of the abscopal effect in a patient with melanoma. N Engl J Med 366(10):925–93122397654 10.1056/NEJMoa1112824
28. Aliru ML Schoenhals JE Venkatesulu BP Anderson CC Barsoumian HB Younes AI Mahadevan LSK Soeung M Aziz KE Welsh JW Krishnan S Radiation therapy and immunotherapy what is the optimal timing or sequencing? Immunotherapy 2018 10 4 299 316 10.2217/imt-2017-0082 29421979
Aliru ML, Schoenhals JE, Venkatesulu BP, Anderson CC, Barsoumian HB, Younes AI, Mahadevan LSK, Soeung M, Aziz KE, Welsh JW, Krishnan S (2018) Radiation therapy and immunotherapy what is the optimal timing or sequencing? Immunotherapy 10(4):299–31629421979 10.2217/imt-2017-0082
29. Zhang B Bowerman NA Salama JK Schmidt H Spiotto MT Schietinger A Yu P Fu YX Weichselbaum RR Rowley DA Kranz DM Schreiber H Induced sensitization of tumor stroma leads to eradication of established cancer by T cells J Exp Med 2007 204 1 49 55 10.1084/jem.20062056 17210731
Zhang B, Bowerman NA, Salama JK, Schmidt H, Spiotto MT, Schietinger A, Yu P, Fu YX, Weichselbaum RR, Rowley DA, Kranz DM, Schreiber H (2007) Induced sensitization of tumor stroma leads to eradication of established cancer by T cells. J Exp Med 204(1):49–5517210731 10.1084/jem.20062056
30. Chen IM Johansen JS Theile S Hjaltelin JX Novitski SI Brunak S Hasselby JP Willemoe GL Lorentzen T Madsen K Jensen BV Wilken EE Geertsen P Behrens C Nolsoe C Hermann KL Svane IM Nielsen D Randomized phase II study of nivolumab with or without ipilimumab combined with stereotactic body radiotherapy for refractory metastatic pancreatic cancer (CheckPAC) J Clin Oncol 2022 40 27 3180 3189 10.1200/JCO.21.02511 35476508
Chen IM, Johansen JS, Theile S, Hjaltelin JX, Novitski SI, Brunak S, Hasselby JP, Willemoe GL, Lorentzen T, Madsen K, Jensen BV, Wilken EE, Geertsen P, Behrens C, Nolsoe C, Hermann KL, Svane IM, Nielsen D (2022) Randomized phase II study of nivolumab with or without ipilimumab combined with stereotactic body radiotherapy for refractory metastatic pancreatic cancer (CheckPAC). J Clin Oncol 40(27):3180–318935476508 10.1200/JCO.21.02511
31. Xie C Duffy AG Brar G Fioravanti S Mabry-Hrones D Walker M Bonilla CM Wood BJ Citrin DE Gil Ramirez EM Escorcia FE Redd B Hernandez JM Davis JL Gasmi B Kleiner D Steinberg SM Jones JC Greten TF Immune checkpoint blockade in combination with stereotactic body radiotherapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma Clin Cancer Res 2020 26 10 2318 2326 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-3624 31996388
Xie C, Duffy AG, Brar G, Fioravanti S, Mabry-Hrones D, Walker M, Bonilla CM, Wood BJ, Citrin DE, Gil Ramirez EM, Escorcia FE, Redd B, Hernandez JM, Davis JL, Gasmi B, Kleiner D, Steinberg SM, Jones JC, Greten TF (2020) Immune checkpoint blockade in combination with stereotactic body radiotherapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 26(10):2318–232631996388 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-3624
32. Du J Lu C Mao L Zhu Y Kong W Shen S Tang M Bao S Cheng H Li G Chen J Li Q He J Li A Qiu X Gu Q Chen D Qi C Song Y Qian X Wang L Qiu Y Liu B PD-1 blockade plus chemoradiotherapy as preoperative therapy for patients with BRPC/LAPC: A biomolecular exploratory, phase II trial Cell Rep Med 2023 4 3 100972 10.1016/j.xcrm.2023.100972 36889321
Du J, Lu C, Mao L, Zhu Y, Kong W, Shen S, Tang M, Bao S, Cheng H, Li G, Chen J, Li Q, He J, Li A, Qiu X, Gu Q, Chen D, Qi C, Song Y, Qian X, Wang L, Qiu Y, Liu B (2023) PD-1 blockade plus chemoradiotherapy as preoperative therapy for patients with BRPC/LAPC: A biomolecular exploratory, phase II trial. Cell Rep Med 4(3):10097236889321 10.1016/j.xcrm.2023.100972
33. Komori A Otsu S Shimokawa M Otsuka T Koga F Ueda Y Nakazawa J Arima S Fukahori M Okabe Y Makiyama A Taguchi H Honda T Shibuki T Nio K Ide Y Ureshino N Mizuta T Shirakawa T Mitsugi K Scoring model with serum albumin and CA19-9 for metastatic pancreatic cancer in second-line treatment: results from the NAPOLEON study Int J Clin Oncol 2023 28 8 1073 1081 10.1007/s10147-023-02354-6 37209158
Komori A, Otsu S, Shimokawa M, Otsuka T, Koga F, Ueda Y, Nakazawa J, Arima S, Fukahori M, Okabe Y, Makiyama A, Taguchi H, Honda T, Shibuki T, Nio K, Ide Y, Ureshino N, Mizuta T, Shirakawa T, Mitsugi K (2023) Scoring model with serum albumin and CA19-9 for metastatic pancreatic cancer in second-line treatment: results from the NAPOLEON study. Int J Clin Oncol 28(8):1073–108137209158 10.1007/s10147-023-02354-6
34. Majidpoor J Mortezaee K The efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in cold cancers and future perspectives Clin Immunol 2021 226 108707 10.1016/j.clim.2021.108707 33662590
Majidpoor J, Mortezaee K (2021) The efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in cold cancers and future perspectives. Clin Immunol 226:10870733662590 10.1016/j.clim.2021.108707
35. Tong F Sun Y Zhu Y Sha H Ni J Qi L Gu Q Zhu C Xi W Liu B Kong W Du J Making "cold" tumors "hot"- radiotherapy remodels the tumor immune microenvironment of pancreatic cancer to benefit from immunotherapy: a case report Front Immunol 2023 14 1277810 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1277810 38179049
Tong F, Sun Y, Zhu Y, Sha H, Ni J, Qi L, Gu Q, Zhu C, Xi W, Liu B, Kong W, Du J (2023) Making “cold” tumors “hot”- radiotherapy remodels the tumor immune microenvironment of pancreatic cancer to benefit from immunotherapy: a case report. Front Immunol 14:127781038179049 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1277810
36. Ghebeh H Elshenawy MA AlSayed AD Al-Tweigeri T Peripheral blood eosinophil count is associated with response to chemoimmunotherapy in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer Immunotherapy 2022 14 4 189 199 10.2217/imt-2021-0149 34984928
Ghebeh H, Elshenawy MA, AlSayed AD, Al-Tweigeri T (2022) Peripheral blood eosinophil count is associated with response to chemoimmunotherapy in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Immunotherapy 14(4):189–19934984928 10.2217/imt-2021-0149
37. Gupta N Yelamanchi R Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A review of recent paradigms and advances in epidemiology, clinical diagnosis and management World J Gastroenterol 2021 27 23 3158 3181 10.3748/wjg.v27.i23.3158 34163104
Gupta N, Yelamanchi R (2021) Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A review of recent paradigms and advances in epidemiology, clinical diagnosis and management. World J Gastroenterol 27(23):3158–318134163104 10.3748/wjg.v27.i23.3158
38. Oettle H Neuhaus P Hochhaus A Hartmann JT Gellert K Ridwelski K Niedergethmann M Zulke C Fahlke J Arning MB Sinn M Hinke A Riess H Adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine and long-term outcomes among patients with resected pancreatic cancer: the CONKO-001 randomized trial JAMA 2013 310 14 1473 1481 10.1001/jama.2013.279201 24104372
Oettle H, Neuhaus P, Hochhaus A, Hartmann JT, Gellert K, Ridwelski K, Niedergethmann M, Zulke C, Fahlke J, Arning MB, Sinn M, Hinke A, Riess H (2013) Adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine and long-term outcomes among patients with resected pancreatic cancer: the CONKO-001 randomized trial. JAMA 310(14):1473–148124104372 10.1001/jama.2013.279201
39. Rahib L Smith BD Aizenberg R Rosenzweig AB Fleshman JM Matrisian LM Projecting cancer incidence and deaths to 2030: the unexpected burden of thyroid, liver, and pancreas cancers in the United States Cancer Res 2014 74 11 2913 2921 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-0155 24840647
Rahib L, Smith BD, Aizenberg R, Rosenzweig AB, Fleshman JM, Matrisian LM (2014) Projecting cancer incidence and deaths to 2030: the unexpected burden of thyroid, liver, and pancreas cancers in the United States. Cancer Res 74(11):2913–292124840647 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-0155
40. O'Reilly EM Oh DY Dhani N Renouf DJ Lee MA Sun W Fisher G Hezel A Chang SC Vlahovic G Takahashi O Yang Y Fitts D Philip PA Durvalumab with or without tremelimumab for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a phase 2 randomized clinical trial JAMA Oncol 2019 5 10 1431 1438 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1588 31318392
O’Reilly EM, Oh DY, Dhani N, Renouf DJ, Lee MA, Sun W, Fisher G, Hezel A, Chang SC, Vlahovic G, Takahashi O, Yang Y, Fitts D, Philip PA (2019) Durvalumab with or without tremelimumab for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a phase 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 5(10):1431–143831318392 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1588
41. Twyman-Saint Victor C Rech AJ Maity A Rengan R Pauken KE Stelekati E Benci JL Xu B Dada H Odorizzi PM Herati RS Mansfield KD Patsch D Amaravadi RK Schuchter LM Ishwaran H Mick R Pryma DA Xu X Feldman MD Gangadhar TC Hahn SM Wherry EJ Vonderheide RH Minn AJ Radiation and dual checkpoint blockade activate non-redundant immune mechanisms in cancer Nature 2015 520 7547 373 377 10.1038/nature14292 25754329
Twyman-Saint Victor C, Rech AJ, Maity A, Rengan R, Pauken KE, Stelekati E, Benci JL, Xu B, Dada H, Odorizzi PM, Herati RS, Mansfield KD, Patsch D, Amaravadi RK, Schuchter LM, Ishwaran H, Mick R, Pryma DA, Xu X, Feldman MD, Gangadhar TC, Hahn SM, Wherry EJ, Vonderheide RH, Minn AJ (2015) Radiation and dual checkpoint blockade activate non-redundant immune mechanisms in cancer. Nature 520(7547):373–37725754329 10.1038/nature14292
42. Bernstein MB Krishnan S Hodge JW Chang JY Immunotherapy and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (ISABR): a curative approach? Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2016 13 8 516 524 10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.30 26951040
Bernstein MB, Krishnan S, Hodge JW, Chang JY (2016) Immunotherapy and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (ISABR): a curative approach? Nat Rev Clin Oncol 13(8):516–52426951040 10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.30
43. Vanpouille-Box C Pilones KA Wennerberg E Formenti SC Demaria S In situ vaccination by radiotherapy to improve responses to anti-CTLA-4 treatment Vaccine 2015 33 51 7415 7422 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.05.105 26148880
Vanpouille-Box C, Pilones KA, Wennerberg E, Formenti SC, Demaria S (2015) In situ vaccination by radiotherapy to improve responses to anti-CTLA-4 treatment. Vaccine 33(51):7415–742226148880 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.05.105
44. Schaue D Ratikan JA Iwamoto KS McBride WH Maximizing tumor immunity with fractionated radiation Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012 83 4 1306 1310 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.09.049 22208977
Schaue D, Ratikan JA, Iwamoto KS, McBride WH (2012) Maximizing tumor immunity with fractionated radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 83(4):1306–131022208977 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.09.049
45. Formenti SC Rudqvist NP Golden E Cooper B Wennerberg E Lhuillier C Vanpouille-Box C Friedman K Ferrari de Andrade L Wucherpfennig KW Heguy A Imai N Gnjatic S Emerson RO Zhou XK Zhang T Chachoua A Demaria S Radiotherapy induces responses of lung cancer to CTLA-4 blockade Nat Med 2018 24 12 1845 1851 10.1038/s41591-018-0232-2 30397353
Formenti SC, Rudqvist NP, Golden E, Cooper B, Wennerberg E, Lhuillier C, Vanpouille-Box C, Friedman K, Ferrari de Andrade L, Wucherpfennig KW, Heguy A, Imai N, Gnjatic S, Emerson RO, Zhou XK, Zhang T, Chachoua A, Demaria S (2018) Radiotherapy induces responses of lung cancer to CTLA-4 blockade. Nat Med 24(12):1845–185130397353 10.1038/s41591-018-0232-2
46. Theelen W Peulen HMU Lalezari F van der Noort V de Vries JF Aerts J Dumoulin DW Bahce I Niemeijer AN de Langen AJ Monkhorst K Baas P Effect of pembrolizumab after stereotactic body radiotherapy vs pembrolizumab alone on tumor response in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: results of the PEMBRO-RT phase 2 randomized clinical trial JAMA Oncol 2019 5 9 1276 1282 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1478 31294749
Theelen W, Peulen HMU, Lalezari F, van der Noort V, de Vries JF, Aerts J, Dumoulin DW, Bahce I, Niemeijer AN, de Langen AJ, Monkhorst K, Baas P (2019) Effect of pembrolizumab after stereotactic body radiotherapy vs pembrolizumab alone on tumor response in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: results of the PEMBRO-RT phase 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 5(9):1276–128231294749 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1478
47. Demaria, S.; Guha, C.; Schoenfeld, J.; Morris, Z.; Monjazeb, A.; Sikora, A.; Crittenden, M.; Shiao, S.; Khleif, S.; Gupta, S.; Formenti, S. C.; Vikram, B.; Coleman, C. N.; Ahmed, M. M., Radiation dose and fraction in immunotherapy: one-size regimen does not fit all settings, so how does one choose? J Immunother Cancer 2021, 9 (4).
48. Altorki NK McGraw TE Borczuk AC Saxena A Port JL Stiles BM Lee BE Sanfilippo NJ Scheff RJ Pua BB Gruden JF Christos PJ Spinelli C Gakuria J Uppal M Binder B Elemento O Ballman KV Formenti SC Neoadjuvant durvalumab with or without stereotactic body radiotherapy in patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer: a single-centre, randomised phase 2 trial Lancet Oncol 2021 22 6 824 835 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00149-2 34015311
Altorki NK, McGraw TE, Borczuk AC, Saxena A, Port JL, Stiles BM, Lee BE, Sanfilippo NJ, Scheff RJ, Pua BB, Gruden JF, Christos PJ, Spinelli C, Gakuria J, Uppal M, Binder B, Elemento O, Ballman KV, Formenti SC (2021) Neoadjuvant durvalumab with or without stereotactic body radiotherapy in patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer: a single-centre, randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 22(6):824–83534015311 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00149-2
49. Huang AC Postow MA Orlowski RJ Mick R Bengsch B Manne S Xu W Harmon S Giles JR Wenz B Adamow M Kuk D Panageas KS Carrera C Wong P Quagliarello F Wubbenhorst B D'Andrea K Pauken KE Herati RS Staupe RP Schenkel JM McGettigan S Kothari S George SM Vonderheide RH Amaravadi RK Karakousis GC Schuchter LM Xu X Nathanson KL Wolchok JD Gangadhar TC Wherry EJ T-cell invigoration to tumour burden ratio associated with anti-PD-1 response Nature 2017 545 7652 60 65 10.1038/nature22079 28397821
Huang AC, Postow MA, Orlowski RJ, Mick R, Bengsch B, Manne S, Xu W, Harmon S, Giles JR, Wenz B, Adamow M, Kuk D, Panageas KS, Carrera C, Wong P, Quagliarello F, Wubbenhorst B, D’Andrea K, Pauken KE, Herati RS, Staupe RP, Schenkel JM, McGettigan S, Kothari S, George SM, Vonderheide RH, Amaravadi RK, Karakousis GC, Schuchter LM, Xu X, Nathanson KL, Wolchok JD, Gangadhar TC, Wherry EJ (2017) T-cell invigoration to tumour burden ratio associated with anti-PD-1 response. Nature 545(7652):60–6528397821 10.1038/nature22079
50. Yoo C Hwang JY Kim JE Kim TW Lee JS Park DH Lee SS Seo DW Lee SK Kim MH Han DJ Kim SC Lee JL A randomised phase II study of modified FOLFIRI.3 vs modified FOLFOX as second-line therapy in patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer Br J Cancer 2009 101 10 1658 63 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605374 19826418
Yoo C, Hwang JY, Kim JE, Kim TW, Lee JS, Park DH, Lee SS, Seo DW, Lee SK, Kim MH, Han DJ, Kim SC, Lee JL (2009) A randomised phase II study of modified FOLFIRI.3 vs modified FOLFOX as second-line therapy in patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer 101(10):1658–6319826418 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605374
51. Takeuchi E Kondo K Okano Y Ichihara S Kunishige M Kadota N Machida H Hatakeyama N Naruse K Ogino H Nokihara H Shinohara T Nishioka Y Pretreatment eosinophil counts as a predictive biomarker in non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors Thorac Cancer 2023 14 3042 3050 10.1111/1759-7714.15100 37669914
Takeuchi E, Kondo K, Okano Y, Ichihara S, Kunishige M, Kadota N, Machida H, Hatakeyama N, Naruse K, Ogino H, Nokihara H, Shinohara T, Nishioka Y (2023) Pretreatment eosinophil counts as a predictive biomarker in non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Thorac Cancer 14:3042–305037669914 10.1111/1759-7714.15100
52. Ghaffari S Rezaei N Eosinophils in the tumor microenvironment: implications for cancer immunotherapy J Transl Med 2023 21 1 551 10.1186/s12967-023-04418-7 37587450
Ghaffari S, Rezaei N (2023) Eosinophils in the tumor microenvironment: implications for cancer immunotherapy. J Transl Med 21(1):55137587450 10.1186/s12967-023-04418-7
53. Grisaru-Tal S Itan M Klion AD Munitz A A new dawn for eosinophils in the tumour microenvironment Nat Rev Cancer 2020 20 10 594 607 10.1038/s41568-020-0283-9 32678342
Grisaru-Tal S, Itan M, Klion AD, Munitz A (2020) A new dawn for eosinophils in the tumour microenvironment. Nat Rev Cancer 20(10):594–60732678342 10.1038/s41568-020-0283-9
54. Qiu X Shi Z Tong F Lu C Zhu Y Wang Q Gu Q Qian X Meng F Liu B Du J Biomarkers for predicting tumor response to PD-1 inhibitors in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer Hum Vaccin Immunother 2023 19 1 2178791 10.1080/21645515.2023.2178791 36809234
Qiu X, Shi Z, Tong F, Lu C, Zhu Y, Wang Q, Gu Q, Qian X, Meng F, Liu B, Du J (2023) Biomarkers for predicting tumor response to PD-1 inhibitors in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Hum Vaccin Immunother 19(1):217879136809234 10.1080/21645515.2023.2178791
55. Hu RJ Ma JY Hu G Lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio in pancreatic cancer: Prognostic significance and meta-analysis Clin Chim Acta 2018 481 142 146 10.1016/j.cca.2018.03.008 29544747
Hu RJ, Ma JY, Hu G (2018) Lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio in pancreatic cancer: Prognostic significance and meta-analysis. Clin Chim Acta 481:142–14629544747 10.1016/j.cca.2018.03.008
56. Zhou Y Cheng S Fathy AH Qian H Zhao Y Prognostic value of platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio in pancreatic cancer: a comprehensive meta-analysis of 17 cohort studies Onco Targets Ther 2018 11 1899 1908 10.2147/OTT.S154162 29670365
Zhou Y, Cheng S, Fathy AH, Qian H, Zhao Y (2018) Prognostic value of platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio in pancreatic cancer: a comprehensive meta-analysis of 17 cohort studies. Onco Targets Ther 11:1899–190829670365 10.2147/OTT.S154162
57. Xiao Y Chen W Xie Z Shao Z Xie H Qin G Zhao N Prognostic relevance of lactate dehydrogenase in advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients BMC Cancer 2017 17 1 25 10.1186/s12885-016-3012-8 28056913
Xiao Y, Chen W, Xie Z, Shao Z, Xie H, Qin G, Zhao N (2017) Prognostic relevance of lactate dehydrogenase in advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients. BMC Cancer 17(1):2528056913 10.1186/s12885-016-3012-8
